Jump to content

Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I am observably not the one that pulls down threads. It’s the bitter people on here that can’t leave the past alone. I’ve nearly got a full house on this thread now & it isn’t close to a ‘majority.’ :whistle

Sorry Baz, your lack of self-awareness is staggering....and that’s coming from someone who refuses to engage in your “ever decreasing circles” dialogue.

Like all of us “occasionally” you have something worthwhile to say, unfortunately you seem to believe that the only worthwhile viewpoint is yours. You then double down on “victim” status  and perceive yourself to be on the wrong side of some campaign against you. For once just try looking inward instead of blaming everyone else.

Edited by WeeBud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WeeBud said:

Sorry Baz, your lack of self-awareness is staggering....and that’s coming from someone who refuses to engage in your “ever decreasing circles” dialogue.

Like all of us “occasionally” you have something worthwhile to say, unfortunately you seem to believe that the only worthwhile viewpoint is yours. You then double down on “victim” status  and perceive yourself to be on the wrong side of some campaign against you. For once just try looking inward instead of blaming everyone else.

This just isn’t true, I welcome other opinions. The issue on here (as I have said before) is, if I don’t change my view when they’re presented, it practically always leads to an argument. That is undoubtedly based on pre-held issues linked to other threads. 
I genuinely don’t understand why others can’t see that on this thread for example. I gave my view on colts & this has (once again) blown up because I questioned a response instead of blindly agreeing with it. I did not blindly agree with it because I feel it is overwhelmingly obvious our senior squad would be different if home grown rules were different. If someone wants to have the view it would be the same, fine but I haven’t had a good argument to change my mind on this.  

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Hey @bazil85 - are you in favour of the Colts like you were of the European Super League?

In the format that was published in the media (the rangers proposal), absolutely not. I feel it clearly only benefits two clubs and includes many missed opportunities regarding developing Scottish talent. In theory I think Colts could work but other clubs passing that proposal would be complete madness in my opinion. Others can of course disagree and are welcome to try and change my views on it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

In the format that was published in the media (the rangers proposal), absolutely not. I feel it clearly only benefits two clubs and includes many missed opportunities regarding developing Scottish talent. In theory I think Colts could work but other clubs passing that proposal would be complete madness in my opinion. Others can of course disagree and are welcome to try and change my views on it.  

So in what format do you think Colts would work in the Scottish professional game?

Personally I believe the reserve league should be reintroduced to allow academy players to play alongside and against older players coming back from injury. It was a format that allowed development in our game and improved the skills levels of our young players - as a result Scotland qualified on a regular basis for major tournaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Yflab said:

So in what format do you think Colts would work in the Scottish professional game?

Personally I believe the reserve league should be reintroduced to allow academy players to play alongside and against older players coming back from injury. It was a format that allowed development in our game and improved the skills levels of our young players - as a result Scotland qualified on a regular basis for major tournaments.

For me I feel it would have to start from an absolute precedent that their main goal is to improve the national squad and it should be part of a larger culture change that sees the future of young footballers far better protected. The only way I would tolerate colts is if it covered the below points. (again happy for people to disagree, hopefully just taking this post at face value) 

- Colts are in place largely as a next step in a clubs youth development, the vast majority (maybe 9) of starting players must be homegrown (developed at parent club for 3 years before the turn 18, I think that's the rule right now but I would maybe even make it 4 or 5 years regarding colts). This would provide some level of protection from teams like Celtic & Rangers chasing your Dylan Reid & Kieran Offord's as the start to develop around 15-18 

- Colt teams and all established youth levels to have pretty low player caps (say 20-22), this again would provide protection against clubs signing dozens of young prospects in the hope a few develop, I think Rangers have something like 45-50 pro youth players on their books right now. 

- Colts introduced alongside homegrown player rules as I previously mentioned. I would want them across the board and blooded in gradually but also see the point in it being a condition of having colts. Say over a five year period you must prepare to have a certain number of home grown (again Scotland eligible) players in your starting 11. I would like to see five with two needing to be under 21 at start of the season. It's definitely doable, Celtic aren't far from it, it would just mean far more game time for players like Johnston, Welsh, Henderson, Ralston. 

I get the point of the reserve league but I also see why it keeps falling away. most squads don't have too many players regarding reserves and they seemed to becoming glorified Under 18s. It's also a big cost for clubs as well. There is a lot that needs sorted in Scottish football and for me, point 1 right now is a complete refocus on supporting & developing young players. 

As for the qualifying, I genuinely think the three foreigner rule helped as well, obviously we couldn't bring that back but homegrown is probably the closest to it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

For me I feel it would have to start from an absolute precedent that their main goal is to improve the national squad and it should be part of a larger culture change that sees the future of young footballers far better protected. The only way I would tolerate colts is if it covered the below points. (again happy for people to disagree, hopefully just taking this post at face value) 

- Colts are in place largely as a next step in a clubs youth development, the vast majority (maybe 9) of starting players must be homegrown (developed at parent club for 3 years before the turn 18, I think that's the rule right now but I would maybe even make it 4 or 5 years regarding colts). This would provide some level of protection from teams like Celtic & Rangers chasing your Dylan Reid & Kieran Offord's as the start to develop around 15-18 

- Colt teams and all established youth levels to have pretty low player caps (say 20-22), this again would provide protection against clubs signing dozens of young prospects in the hope a few develop, I think Rangers have something like 45-50 pro youth players on their books right now. 

- Colts introduced alongside homegrown player rules as I previously mentioned. I would want them across the board and blooded in gradually but also see the point in it being a condition of having colts. Say over a five year period you must prepare to have a certain number of home grown (again Scotland eligible) players in your starting 11. I would like to see five with two needing to be under 21 at start of the season. It's definitely doable, Celtic aren't far from it, it would just mean far more game time for players like Johnston, Welsh, Henderson, Ralston. 

I get the point of the reserve league but I also see why it keeps falling away. most squads don't have too many players regarding reserves and they seemed to becoming glorified Under 18s. It's also a big cost for clubs as well. There is a lot that needs sorted in Scottish football and for me, point 1 right now is a complete refocus on supporting & developing young players. 

As for the qualifying, I genuinely think the three foreigner rule helped as well, obviously we couldn't bring that back but homegrown is probably the closest to it.  

 

Good points.

Not sure which country it was, but I read recently that a country have introduced a rule where the starting first 11 needs to contain two u21 academy players. 
We need some positive change in our top league, but thanks to Aberdeen we lost the option of changing the 10-2 voting structure when Rangers died.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Good points.

Not sure which country it was, but I read recently that a country have introduced a rule where the starting first 11 needs to contain two u21 academy players. 
We need some positive change in our top league, but thanks to Aberdeen we lost the option of changing the 10-2 voting structure when Rangers died.

 

Someone had mentioned the Swiss and Belgian leagues had the strictest homegrown rules in Europe (if anyone can fact check that, appreciated). But if true we just need to look at the benefits in their national teams compared to Scotland. 

Yeah Aberdeen jumped right into bed with Celtic, very poor. For me the voting structure could also be put as a point of sacrifice for Celtic and Rangers. "Okay we'll give you colts but with these changes & we also want to remove the ludicrous 11-1 voting structure that hampers change in Scottish football" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2021 at 8:40 PM, bazil85 said:

I agree & the same goes for BEK & I on here.
That’s fine, I think you are an argumentative, rude & obnoxious little man that’s main goal on here is to belittle practically everyone over almost every topic that comes up. 

‘All’ you don’t speak for everyone on here, just a few miserable gits that can’t leave the past alone. I’m going nowhere, go cry into your ignore button if me commenting upsets you so much. 👍

It's not the past when you do it on every f**king thread you go near. It's very much the present. Your absolutely f**king soul destroying and will now be my first and only ignore. The problem can't be every other poster on here. There's plenty of them who I think are bellends, but none of them get anywhere close to your tedious shite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



It's not the past when you do it on every f**king thread you go near. It's very much the present. Your absolutely f**king soul destroying and will now be my first and only ignore. The problem can't be every other poster on here. There's plenty of them who I think are bellends, but none of them get anywhere close to your tedious shite. 


Am I one of them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slarti said:

*You're

Does that get me on it? emoji1787.png

😂 Naw. That was a phone autocorrect. And to paraphrase a certain bellend. Of course you should've known I meant you're cause it was inside my head, it's not my fault you didn't know what I meant and not what I said yadda f**kin ya ad infinitum until the end of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw. That was a phone autocorrect. And to paraphrase a certain bellend. Of course you should've known I meant you're cause it was inside my head, it's not my fault you didn't know what I meant and not what I said yadda f**kin ya ad infinitum until the end of time. 


Ad infinitum et ultra.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

It's not the past when you do it on every f**king thread you go near. It's very much the present. Your absolutely f**king soul destroying and will now be my first and only ignore. The problem can't be every other poster on here. There's plenty of them who I think are bellends, but none of them get anywhere close to your tedious shite. 

first and only ignore - Thanks for sharing.

Every other poster on here - It's not, just a select few miserable gits that can't leave the past alone (or points that have since quietened down for that matter) I can almost count them on one hand including those sucking up the other peoples ar**s. 

Close to your tedious sh**e - I'm not responding to myself and I'm certainly not involved in every long drawn-out argument on here, maybe you should try looking a bit more holistically. :whistle

Anyway congratulations on your first ignore (if true), glad to see you followed the rules strictly in announcing it to everyone first. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bazil85 said:

first and only ignore - Thanks for sharing.

Every other poster on here - It's not, just a select few miserable gits that can't leave the past alone (or points that have since quietened down for that matter) I can almost count them on one hand including those sucking up the other peoples ar**s. 

Close to your tedious sh**e - I'm not responding to myself and I'm certainly not involved in every long drawn-out argument on here, maybe you should try looking a bit more holistically. :whistle

Anyway congratulations on your first ignore (if true), glad to see you followed the rules strictly in announcing it to everyone first. 🤣

He can’t read your response ya mad man.

Oops now he can since I replied.

I like this game. If I keep replying to your posts then @slapsalmon may ban me too!

We could have our own wee club ya dafty! I have a medical reason why I’m a nutter what’s yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can’t read your response ya mad man.
Oops now he can since I replied.
I like this game. If I keep replying to your posts then [mention=6900]slapsalmon[/mention] may ban me too!
We could have our own wee club ya dafty! I have a medical reason why I’m a nutter what’s yours?
I have a medical reason to consume copious amounts of alcohol and that alcohol makes me a nutter.

Just checking, erm, greed is a medical condition, isn't it? :whistle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yflab said:

He can’t read your response ya mad man.

Oops now he can since I replied.

I like this game. If I keep replying to your posts then @slapsalmon may ban me too!

We could have our own wee club ya dafty! I have a medical reason why I’m a nutter what’s yours?

Haha yeah, a few people have pointed that out before... In posts that allow the person to see the comment. That's how oor Slarti still places himself in practically every thread I post in (he actually responded while I was typing this). 

Either that or the "ignore" claim often turns out to be a bit of a fib. 

image.thumb.png.6960fe721f5ae5eb5fc43fb0c8856e02.png 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yflab said:

He can’t read your response ya mad man.

Oops now he can since I replied.

I like this game. If I keep replying to your posts then @slapsalmon may ban me too!

We could have our own wee club ya dafty! I have a medical reason why I’m a nutter what’s yours?

Ya horrible bastard. I don't want to read his shite 😂. Should be an option to ignore inside quotes as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...